Zimmerman Prosecution Imploding, Analysts Say

[Book of Jeremiah]

OMG it did? It became human. The case will be made by the prosecution doing closing augments. I he walks incompetent representation should allow an appeal. I was never sure WHO the prosecution was.

I agree with Crusader Frank on political issues and he is right that the case was politically motivated in that Obama said Treyvon could be his son. HOWEVER!

I agree with you that it is hard to determine WHO the prosecution is in this trial. Had the prosecution been serious in its desire to convict Zimmerman they would have gathered every single member of the Neighborhood Watch Group he represented and put each one on the stand. They would have questioned each member of the Neighborhood Watch Group in great detail concerning what they expected of their Neighborhood Watch group and whether or not that included carrying a gun, following those who look suspicious, etc. The prosecution never did this? Why? My friend - who pointed this out - says it is because the prosecution is incompetent.

Aaaaahh... I'm not so sure although I fully agree with my friend that Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter in this particular case.

I am wondering if the decision was made in advance to not pursue a conviction because as Frank points out this IS politically motivated and the desired outcome all along was a not guilty verdict which would kick off the Black on Latino / White Mob violence the HLS and Military were doing drills for in residential neighborhoods across America last summer- truth is stranger than fiction, folks.

I certainly agree the Prosecution didn't do their job and to that I say.........LOOK FOR THE REASON WHY.

- Jeri

That is really stupid. You don't know who the prosecution questioned and who they didn't. One thing is for sure, they talked to far more people than they put on the stand. If a person doesn't have anything of substance for testimony, then they aren't generally part of the trial. Unless you are a lawyer, you don't know anything about the practice of law.

Sure I do. It was televised. They never called the list of members of the Neighborhood Watch group to testify -How do I know this?

Because I've been exchanging emails with a close friend of mine who is one of the top Lawyers in Orlando following the case closely and he told me they didn't. He said he cannot get over the incompetence of the prosecution - its a clear case of manslaughter. Now whether Zimmerman gets convicted or not - does not negate the fact that if Zimmerman had not followed Martin there would never have been an altercation and Martin would still be alive.

Zimmerman crossed the line and the only people who can CLARIFY and IDENTIFY what that line is are the members of the Neighborhood Watch Group who were left out of the equation guaranteeing eternal uncertainty & ignorance for the jury. Thanks. - Jeri

 

[Vox]

I love it when people who've made up their minds ahead of time attack other people for having made up their minds ahead of time.

I like your self-criticism and your criticism of your left-wing brethren

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Every single member of the Neighborhood Watch Group should have been forced to testify under oath before the jury. Every single one of them. That was never done.

The prosecution has excluded the one group that can determine whether or not Zimmerman crossed the line.

Insignificant? I think not.

It was the evidence and testimony they needed for a guilty verdict.

-Jeremiah

 

[Truthseeker420]

Two prosecution witnesses testified the blood would be running back into his throat. For those of you who find this case not to be bloody enough.

And you don't have to get 'pummeled' to have reasonable fear.

Blood running down the throat was a speculative scenario. And testimony by Zimmerman's PA and the medical examiner that Zimmerman's injuries were nowhere near life threatening( imo )is not reasonable fear...

You will find that to be disputed in the coming days. It already has been by a prosecution witness who said that it is preferable one does NOT wait until they have a life threatening injury to defend their own life.

Non bias witnesses usually trumps paid bias defense witnesses.

 

[bripat9643]

I agree with Crusader Frank on political issues and he is right that the case was politically motivated in that Obama said Treyvon could be his son. HOWEVER!

I agree with you that it is hard to determine WHO the prosecution is in this trial. Had the prosecution been serious in its desire to convict Zimmerman they would have gathered every single member of the Neighborhood Watch Group he represented and put each one on the stand. They would have questioned each member of the Neighborhood Watch Group in great detail concerning what they expected of their Neighborhood Watch group and whether or not that included carrying a gun, following those who look suspicious, etc. The prosecution never did this? Why? My friend - who pointed this out - says it is because the prosecution is incompetent.

Aaaaahh... I'm not so sure although I fully agree with my friend that Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter in this particular case.

I am wondering if the decision was made in advance to not pursue a conviction because as Frank points out this IS politically motivated and the desired outcome all along was a not guilty verdict which would kick off the Black on Latino / White Mob violence the HLS and Military were doing drills for in residential neighborhoods across America last summer- truth is stranger than fiction, folks.

I certainly agree the Prosecution didn't do their job and to that I say.........LOOK FOR THE REASON WHY.

- Jeri

That is really stupid. You don't know who the prosecution questioned and who they didn't. One thing is for sure, they talked to far more people than they put on the stand. If a person doesn't have anything of substance for testimony, then they aren't generally part of the trial. Unless you are a lawyer, you don't know anything about the practice of law.

Sure I do. It was televised. They never called the list of members of the Neighborhood Watch group to testify -How do I know this?

Because I've been exchanging emails with a close friend of mine who is one of the top Lawyers in Orlando following the case closely and he told me they didn't. He said he cannot get over the incompetence of the prosecution - its a clear case of manslaughter.

Your lawyer friend is obviously an incompetent boob because it's not even close to manslaughter. There is no gross negligence on the part of Zimmerman. He was defending himself.

Now whether Zimmerman gets convicted or not - does not negate the fact that if Zimmerman had not followed Martin there would never have been an altercation and Martin would still be alive.

That's the same as saying if the rape victim hadn't worn the slutty dress she wouldn't have been raped. It's even worse that than, because following someone is perfectly legitimate behavior. It's not criminal. However, assaulting someone is criminal, and that's what Trayvon did.

Zimmerman crossed the line and the only people who can CLARIFY and IDENTIFY what that line is are the members of the Neighborhood Watch Group who were left out of the equation guaranteeing eternal uncertainty & ignorance for the jury. Thanks. - Jeri

Zimmerman didn't cross any line. He didn't break any law or even do anything that was suspicious. All his actions were perfectly reasonable and legitimate. Trayvon is a thug who broke the law. He was behaving suspiciously and then he assaulted someone. He got what he deserved.

 

[bripat9643]

Blood running down the throat was a speculative scenario. And testimony by Zimmerman's PA and the medical examiner that Zimmerman's injuries were nowhere near life threatening( imo )is not reasonable fear...

You will find that to be disputed in the coming days. It already has been by a prosecution witness who said that it is preferable one does NOT wait until they have a life threatening injury to defend their own life.

Non bias witnesses usually trumps paid bias defense witnesses.

The prosecution witness was biased against the prosecution?

You are a major league idiot.

 

[Mustang]

If you want to know if conservatives have taken a "principled position" in this case, ask yourself the following question, and answer honestly, please:

What if Zimmerman was a dark-skinned man who had stalked a white teenage boy (let's call him Richie Cunningham) who was on the way home with skittles for his sister Joanie, and he hadn't broken any laws along the way. Then the wannabe cop ended up shooting Richie to death, later claiming self-defense. Would conservatives support him en masse like they are now? Or would they demand justice for fair-haired Richie Cunningham as Mr and Mrs C. looked on in the courtroom? What would a conservative Arthur Fonzarelli say to that scenario?

 

[bripat9643]

Every single member of the Neighborhood Watch Group should have been forced to testify under oath before the jury. Every single one of them. That was never done.

The prosecution has excluded the one group that can determine whether or not Zimmerman crossed the line.

Insignificant? I think not.

It was the evidence and testimony they needed for a guilty verdict.

-Jeremiah

How would the other members of the neighborhood watch determine whether Zimmerman "crossed the line?" What makes them experts in anything? They wouldn't have added one iota to the prosecution's case.

 

[bripat9643]

If you want to know if conservatives have taken a "principled position" in this case, ask yourself the following question, and answer honestly, please:

If Zimmerman was a dark-skinned man who had stalked a white teenage boy (let's call him Richie Cunningham) who was on the way home with skittles for his sister Joanie, and he hadn't broken any laws along the way. But the wannabe cop ended up shooting Richie to death, later claiming self-defense. Would conservatives support him en masse like they are now? Or would they demand justice for fair-haired Richie Cunningham as Mr and Mrs C. looked on in the courtroom? What would a conservative Arthur Fonzarelli say to that scenario?

It never would have made the 5:00 o'clock news because the liberal media simply doesn't view black on white crime as newsworthy.

 

[Truthseeker420]

If you want to know if conservatives have taken a "principled position" in this case, ask yourself the following question, and answer honestly, please:

If Zimmerman was a dark-skinned man who had stalked a white teenage boy (let's call him Richie Cunningham) who was on the way home with skittles for his sister Joanie, and he hadn't broken any laws along the way. But the wannabe cop ended up shooting Richie to death, later claiming self-defense. Would conservatives support him en masse like they are now? Or would they demand justice for fair-haired Richie Cunningham as Mr and Mrs C. looked on in the courtroom? What would a conservative Arthur Fonzarelli say to that scenario?

It never would have made the 5:00 o'clock news because the liberal media simply doesn't view black on white crime as newsworthy.

So you admit what Zimmerman did was a crime?

 

[bripat9643]

If you want to know if conservatives have taken a "principled position" in this case, ask yourself the following question, and answer honestly, please:

If Zimmerman was a dark-skinned man who had stalked a white teenage boy (let's call him Richie Cunningham) who was on the way home with skittles for his sister Joanie, and he hadn't broken any laws along the way. But the wannabe cop ended up shooting Richie to death, later claiming self-defense. Would conservatives support him en masse like they are now? Or would they demand justice for fair-haired Richie Cunningham as Mr and Mrs C. looked on in the courtroom? What would a conservative Arthur Fonzarelli say to that scenario?

It never would have made the 5:00 o'clock news because the liberal media simply doesn't view black on white crime as newsworthy.

So you admit what Zimmerman did was a crime?

I admit that you must be mentally retarded.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

It's called a Neighborhood WATCH Group. NOT Neighborhood Seek out & Destroy Group.


WATCH does not mean "Follow" suspect. WATCH does not mean "kill" suspect.

WATCH means Watch. Period.

-Jeri

FOLLOWING is one obvious way to KEEP watching.

And following is perfectly legal, too.

And being part of the neighborhood watch has NOTHING to do with why GZ shot and killed Trayvon.

Justification MEANS justified. Period.

Following is one obvious way to KEEP watching.

Is that how it reads in their Neighborhood Watch Manual? What is the wording? How did the neighbors come to their decision on what defines the word WATCH? Did it include following anyone suspicious? Did it include Neighorhood Watch patrol carrying a gun?

Being a part of a neighborhood watch had everything to do with Zimmermans decision to follow Martin.

Justification hasn't been determined because the Prosecution refused to call to the stand the list of members of that Neighborhood Watch Group. They are the only ones who can confirm what the rules were concerning Neighborhood Watch procedures. Without them you are merely speculating as to what the definition of WATCH includes.

-Jeremiah

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Every single member of the Neighborhood Watch Group should have been forced to testify under oath before the jury. Every single one of them. That was never done.

The prosecution has excluded the one group that can determine whether or not Zimmerman crossed the line.

Insignificant? I think not.

It was the evidence and testimony they needed for a guilty verdict.

-Jeremiah

How would the other members of the neighborhood watch determine whether Zimmerman "crossed the line?" What makes them experts in anything? They wouldn't have added one iota to the prosecution's case.[/QUOTE


They are the ones who formed the Neighborhood Watch Group. Who else would have that information but them? They were of critical importance in getting a guilty verdict. I can look up a Neighborhood Watch Group and put up a link for information. I'm certain that none of them suggest carrying a gun and following people they don't recongize from the neighborhood. It would lead to the exact situation you are witnessing right now with Zimmerman. Which is why he is guilty of manslaughter. imo.

 

[Mustang]

If you want to know if conservatives have taken a "principled position" in this case, ask yourself the following question, and answer honestly, please:

If Zimmerman was a dark-skinned man who had stalked a white teenage boy (let's call him Richie Cunningham) who was on the way home with skittles for his sister Joanie, and he hadn't broken any laws along the way. But the wannabe cop ended up shooting Richie to death, later claiming self-defense. Would conservatives support him en masse like they are now? Or would they demand justice for fair-haired Richie Cunningham as Mr and Mrs C. looked on in the courtroom? What would a conservative Arthur Fonzarelli say to that scenario?

It never would have made the 5:00 o'clock news because the liberal media simply doesn't view black on white crime as newsworthy.

Yeah, it probably would not have made the news. Know why? Because in this alternate scenario, Zimmerman would have been charged within a normal time frame for alleged crimes of this nature. You see, the reason why this story made the news in the first place is because Zimmerman walked away without even much of an investigation, let alone an arrest.

Edit to add: Now, if Zimmerman walked away in this alternate reality, you better damn well believe the story would have made the news. In fact, it would have almost certainly been Fox News new cause célèbre, 24/7.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

That is really stupid. You don't know who the prosecution questioned and who they didn't. One thing is for sure, they talked to far more people than they put on the stand. If a person doesn't have anything of substance for testimony, then they aren't generally part of the trial. Unless you are a lawyer, you don't know anything about the practice of law.

Sure I do. It was televised. They never called the list of members of the Neighborhood Watch group to testify -How do I know this?

Because I've been exchanging emails with a close friend of mine who is one of the top Lawyers in Orlando following the case closely and he told me they didn't. He said he cannot get over the incompetence of the prosecution - its a clear case of manslaughter.

Your lawyer friend is obviously an incompetent boob because it's not even close to manslaughter. There is no gross negligence on the part of Zimmerman. He was defending himself.

Now whether Zimmerman gets convicted or not - does not negate the fact that if Zimmerman had not followed Martin there would never have been an altercation and Martin would still be alive.

That's the same as saying if the rape victim hadn't worn the slutty dress she wouldn't have been raped. It's even worse that than, because following someone is perfectly legitimate behavior. It's not criminal. However, assaulting someone is criminal, and that's what Trayvon did.

Zimmerman crossed the line and the only people who can CLARIFY and IDENTIFY what that line is are the members of the Neighborhood Watch Group who were left out of the equation guaranteeing eternal uncertainty & ignorance for the jury. Thanks. - Jeri

Zimmerman didn't cross any line. He didn't break any law or even do anything that was suspicious. All his actions were perfectly reasonable and legitimate. Trayvon is a thug who broke the law. He was behaving suspiciously and then he assaulted someone. He got what he deserved.

According to these Neighborhood Watch Guidelines - He did. Read up:

Neighborhood Block Watch Guidelines | eHow

So let's look at this from the point of view that Zimmerman knew full well the neighorhood block watch guidelines were----------> do not take the law into your own hands, do not follow the individual - it is clear he knew ahead of time that following was not permitted much less following with a deadly weapon.

Add to this that Zimmerman signed up and took a course on Stand your Ground law - he knew the ins and outs and yet told the police he had no idea what the Stand your Ground law was when he was questioned. So he lied about that. He not only knew.. according to his instructor he recieved an A for the course.

Bottom line. Zimmerman took the law into his own hands. Knew the Stand your Ground defense inside and out and customized his story to fit the profile therein obtaining a not guilty verdict.

It's manslaughter. Imo.

-Jeri

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

A 17 yr old with a can of tea and a bag of skittles? Are you kidding? I could care less about his past, his gold teeth or his drug use. Bottom line is you've got a kid with a can of ice tea and a bag of skittles being followed for no reason. Zimmerman should have applied for law enforcement if that was his dream in life. Bottom line is he was wrong to follow Martin. Nothing else matters - skip the blood down his throat - all of the drama - it is after the fact and has no bearing whatsover.

-J.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

A 17 yr old with a can of tea and a bag of skittles? Are you kidding? I could care less about his past, his gold teeth or his drug use. Bottom line is you've got a kid with a can of ice tea and a bag of skittles being followed for no reason. Zimmerman should have applied for law enforcement if that was his dream in life. Bottom line is he was wrong to follow Martin. Nothing else matters - skip the blood down his throat - all of the drama - it is after the fact and has no bearing whatsover.

-J.

"being followed for no reason." Nice conclusion. But baseless. There was a reason. You may not like the reason, but that's a very different matter.

"Bottom line is he was wrong to follow Martin." No. That's not a bottom line. It is just a statement of your opinion. And it is wrong. There is no valid basis to say he was "wrong" to do so.

And the "blood down the throat" answers a question -- which is more than can be validly said about your assertions of mere opinion after mere opinion.

 

[FA_Q2]

Sure I do. It was televised. They never called the list of members of the Neighborhood Watch group to testify -How do I know this?

Because I've been exchanging emails with a close friend of mine who is one of the top Lawyers in Orlando following the case closely and he told me they didn't. He said he cannot get over the incompetence of the prosecution - its a clear case of manslaughter.

Your lawyer friend is obviously an incompetent boob because it's not even close to manslaughter. There is no gross negligence on the part of Zimmerman. He was defending himself.



That's the same as saying if the rape victim hadn't worn the slutty dress she wouldn't have been raped. It's even worse that than, because following someone is perfectly legitimate behavior. It's not criminal. However, assaulting someone is criminal, and that's what Trayvon did.

Zimmerman crossed the line and the only people who can CLARIFY and IDENTIFY what that line is are the members of the Neighborhood Watch Group who were left out of the equation guaranteeing eternal uncertainty & ignorance for the jury. Thanks. - Jeri

Zimmerman didn't cross any line. He didn't break any law or even do anything that was suspicious. All his actions were perfectly reasonable and legitimate. Trayvon is a thug who broke the law. He was behaving suspiciously and then he assaulted someone. He got what he deserved.

According to these Neighborhood Watch Guidelines - He did. Read up:

Neighborhood Block Watch Guidelines | eHow

So let's look at this from the point of view that Zimmerman knew full well the neighorhood block watch guidelines were----------> do not take the law into your own hands, do not follow the individual - it is clear he knew ahead of time that following was not permitted much less following with a deadly weapon.

Add to this that Zimmerman signed up and took a course on Stand your Ground law - he knew the ins and outs and yet told the police he had no idea what the Stand your Ground law was when he was questioned. So he lied about that. He not only knew.. according to his instructor he recieved an A for the course.

Bottom line. Zimmerman took the law into his own hands. Knew the Stand your Ground defense inside and out and customized his story to fit the profile therein obtaining a not guilty verdict.

It's manslaughter. Imo.

-Jeri

Except that is false. Following is permitted – there is no law against that, period. The fact that he was armed is beside the point; that was also legal.

You seem to be hung up on things that he should have done. No one argues that he should not have followed, should have avoided the whole situation and essentially never should have gotten into a confrontation with Martin. None of that matters though because should does not mean illegal. Everything he did was LEGAL up until the point where the altercation broke out. IF Martin started that altercation, then Zimmerman is innocent. That is really all there is to it no matter if he made idiotic decisions before that. The prosecution, therefore, needs to convince the Jury that Zimmerman either started the altercation or provoked it.

 

[pioneerpete]

If you were living in a city that had a crime rate higher than 96% of the cities in America, would you be suspicious of a person that was off of any sidewalk/road, around houses that have had a rash of break ins, in the dark, in the rain, and not moving at a pace that matched the environment? Would it raise your suspicions further when that person circles your vehicle while you are on the phone with non-emergency? Would it then raise your suspicions further if he took off running? Would you attempt to find out where he was if the non-emergency dispatcher asked what he was doing multiple times? When you are punched in the nose would you feel threatened? When you are straddled on a sidewalk with punches and head slams being forced upon you would you feel that you were in danger? When you cried for help and no one would help would you feel your life was in danger?

 

[Plasmaball]

The case is politically motivated, Obama made it so by saying Treyvon could be his son. The prosecution has no case. The Defense should ask the judge to direct a not guilty verdict

yawn boring talking point...